Agreed, but I mostly have that sentiment due to modern track design needing to feel more like a rollercoaster than a race track in addition to just being a colorful blurry mess on split screen.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Your controversial gaming opinions?
- Thread starter tgrfawcett
- Start date
No matter how much work or effort goes into them, I just can't help but think of fanmade story/content mods as low budget and often cringey.The amount of skill and perseverance it takes to put something like this out is amazing and should be applauded....but they're just something I would never use. There's something oddly purist about the way I play where I only want content put out by the creators, and only believe in installing mods that fix bugs, improve QOL, etc.
I've been saying this forever. But I don't think it's the double jump itself that makes it bad. Double jump is almost always added to a 3D platformer because the game already feels bad and frustrating and the double jump is the easy universal fix that makes any sort of precision movement and platforming irrelevant. It's the most comical and nonsensical yet omnipresent mechanic that only exists for the purpose of making a platformer with bad game feel less punishing and frustrating.
One hundred perfect. You described it much better than me
Been playing some New Vegas after the release of the Fallout TV show and here's my unpopular (I think) opinion:
VATS sucks and first person Fallouts would probably be better without it.
I get why it's there. Fallout was a heavily tabletop inspired series (I think specifically inspired by GURPS) and VATS serves the dual purpose of keeping that tabletop inspired percentage-to-hit design of the earlier Fallouts and having stat distribution directly affect your combat capabilities and proficiencies.
The problem is, the first person Fallout games are action RPGs. So what we're left with is a combat system that feels like an action/turn-based hybrid with the benefits of neither. The action elements aren't strong enough to be satisfying on their own, and the turn-based elements (i.e. VATS) don't really add much in the way of meaningful strategy, acting as more of an "I win" button if your stats are high enough.
Personally, I think a Cyberpunk or Mass Effect style system, in which investing in stats or weapons skills grants access to active abilities to use in the real-time combat is a generally better way to do shooter action RPGs. I think Fallout 4 was a little closer to that with it's perk system but, with what little I played of it still felt like VATS grating against the real-time combat.
The other option is to go the complete opposite way and go right back to fully turn-based combat, which I think would kick ass but I don't see happening anytime soon for the mainline games lmao.
VATS sucks and first person Fallouts would probably be better without it.
I get why it's there. Fallout was a heavily tabletop inspired series (I think specifically inspired by GURPS) and VATS serves the dual purpose of keeping that tabletop inspired percentage-to-hit design of the earlier Fallouts and having stat distribution directly affect your combat capabilities and proficiencies.
The problem is, the first person Fallout games are action RPGs. So what we're left with is a combat system that feels like an action/turn-based hybrid with the benefits of neither. The action elements aren't strong enough to be satisfying on their own, and the turn-based elements (i.e. VATS) don't really add much in the way of meaningful strategy, acting as more of an "I win" button if your stats are high enough.
Personally, I think a Cyberpunk or Mass Effect style system, in which investing in stats or weapons skills grants access to active abilities to use in the real-time combat is a generally better way to do shooter action RPGs. I think Fallout 4 was a little closer to that with it's perk system but, with what little I played of it still felt like VATS grating against the real-time combat.
The other option is to go the complete opposite way and go right back to fully turn-based combat, which I think would kick ass but I don't see happening anytime soon for the mainline games lmao.
Honestly yeah I think if Fallout is going to stick to the first person perspective with more of an emphasis on action (which, let's face it, is a guarantee), VATS should be reworked. Maybe they concentrate on making the shooting equivalent to a modern FPS game and VATS becomes kind of a meter-based guaranteed crit (with slo-mo for emphasis) instead of a way to work around this weird quasi stat-based thing it currently tries to be.
Framerate complaints still boggle me to this day as to how it's such a big deal for people. I genuinely don't think I'll ever fully understand it, and it makes me feel like I'm going crazy sometimes reading how serious it is for people here.
But it simply not being important to me isn't what makes the complaints so annoying . It's that they're so fucking boring in the context of a discussion forum. Other aspects of games that you can complain about - gameplay mechanics, level design, story, art style, music, etc. - at least result in interesting conversations. Story is one of the least important aspects of Zelda games for me in terms of impacting my enjoyment, but I at least find the discussion and criticism of them from people who do care about the stories interesting.
Quite literally no quality discussion is to be had about framerates. No room for interesting viewpoints or opinions, just "does it bother me or not and if it does I'm complaining that number is not high enough." It's just utterly vapid. And it's like half the thread about most modern games. Just heaps and heaps of mind-numbing posts to wade through. Which, honestly, the fact that most modern games get these complaints makes me feel less like I'm going crazy because devs clearly don't see it as a priority either lol.
But it simply not being important to me isn't what makes the complaints so annoying . It's that they're so fucking boring in the context of a discussion forum. Other aspects of games that you can complain about - gameplay mechanics, level design, story, art style, music, etc. - at least result in interesting conversations. Story is one of the least important aspects of Zelda games for me in terms of impacting my enjoyment, but I at least find the discussion and criticism of them from people who do care about the stories interesting.
Quite literally no quality discussion is to be had about framerates. No room for interesting viewpoints or opinions, just "does it bother me or not and if it does I'm complaining that number is not high enough." It's just utterly vapid. And it's like half the thread about most modern games. Just heaps and heaps of mind-numbing posts to wade through. Which, honestly, the fact that most modern games get these complaints makes me feel less like I'm going crazy because devs clearly don't see it as a priority either lol.
If it literally gives someone a headache, it just requires basic empathy on your part.
But we've gone over how framerate ties into game feel in smoothness plenty of times. If you can compliment a game for it's frame rate and feel, why can't the opposite apply?
I think you can compliment/dock games for framerate issues, but when that's the main point of discussion vs. just a singular bullet point then that's when the discussion becomes kinda vapid. Framerate definitely impacts gamefeel but it's not the end-all-be-all for most people, and something like an input buffer is more important for me and that gets very little discussion. It's different if low framerates cause headaches, and I feel bad for people for whom that's the case, but I also can't really say anything about it other than that it sucks and that I'm sorry.
You call it a bullet point, but it's also something that effects some genres more than others and can determine what console people play these games on. People can say they don't care, but if something they're used to being 60 suddenly wasn't, I'm certain they'd "get it". A lot of this can just come off as "well I don't care, so no one should". And I'm not even someone that cares that much, but you can see it clear as day for certain games and genres.
Basically this. Main point of my post is that it's just a boring complaint to discuss.
I think the Xbox version of Sensible World of Soccer is the best version. The new graphics are pleasantly detailed and retain the charm. It has widescreen with multiple camera options. Includes the old graphics in 4:3 too. Analog stick is perfect for it. Maybe the best sports game.
It truly is. Any time I see a conversation about a game focusing around its frame rate I tend to just assume the game must be boring if that's what people are choosing to talk about.
Been diving back into Fallout 4, alongside everyone else on the internet it seems, and I have greatly enjoyed my time in the Commonwealth.
With that said, I definitely prefer the sci-fi setting, the vibes of Settled Systems, the ambient and orchestral music of Starfield. I feel like alot of people didn't connect with the setting as much and prefer the world of Fallout, and I can understand that but definitely not me.
With that said, I definitely prefer the sci-fi setting, the vibes of Settled Systems, the ambient and orchestral music of Starfield. I feel like alot of people didn't connect with the setting as much and prefer the world of Fallout, and I can understand that but definitely not me.
"The sky is blue"
"oh yeah what about SUNSET"
Yes we get it -_-
I think I understand concern trolling.
It's different to fair and legitimate complaints about something.
What I don't know think I understand is something that needs a new term.
The constant titillation one receives by conflating the two? It's hard to think of examples off the top of my head but it's become more prevalent.
I'm not currently in the weeds with any Blizzard titles but it's not through any criticism I have of any of the supported titles. It was/is really difficult to parse what was stuff I tried to understand would be a real issue for me when I go to play and what was essentially someone posting the equivalent of slowing down and watching a train crash take place.
Rather, I'd probably call it out if I think I see it when it happens. It's not necessarily going to sound like I'm disagreeing with the take itself, it's me coming off like I'm having a crack at someone personally and that's unfortunate.
It's different to fair and legitimate complaints about something.
What I don't know think I understand is something that needs a new term.
The constant titillation one receives by conflating the two? It's hard to think of examples off the top of my head but it's become more prevalent.
I'm not currently in the weeds with any Blizzard titles but it's not through any criticism I have of any of the supported titles. It was/is really difficult to parse what was stuff I tried to understand would be a real issue for me when I go to play and what was essentially someone posting the equivalent of slowing down and watching a train crash take place.
Rather, I'd probably call it out if I think I see it when it happens. It's not necessarily going to sound like I'm disagreeing with the take itself, it's me coming off like I'm having a crack at someone personally and that's unfortunate.
You're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of (which is already a reach) and you know it.
But I suppose I can decide that just because I'm tired of hearing about something, I can just say that instead of addressing the actual point and the complaint will eventually go away. That's how we got rid of ludonarrative dissonance. Let's just "it doesn't matter" everything away.
I genuinely don't know what this is in reference to.
Obviously fighting games need good frame rate. That is a built in given.
What are you even talking about, this kinda feels like it came out of nowhere. Do people talk about framerate regarding fighting games a lot to your tastes? They are almost all universally locked to 60FPS unless you're digging up some real off-brand crap for the most part. Or is this about something else?
yeah I've been saying this for a while, snaking in mario kart ds isn't hard to learn at all, and makes the game really fun
"it's also something that effects some genres more than others and can determine what console people play these games on."
Giving a specific example for my initial point is digging up some real off brand crap out of nowhere? Be serious.
I wasn't referring to "you" in specific, I was just saying that most fighting games are 60FPS aside from some very obscure or experimental examples in the genre. I think we're misunderstanding each other on that front.
I guess more so I don't understand where you were getting at.
Beat Mass Effect 1 the other day for the first time and went straight into 2...
Everyone hated on this thing but for me its absence from 2 is actually kinda painfully noticeable.
I feel like it added a lot to the 1st game and its absence really makes 2 feel more like a corridor shooter despite much of the game being significantly better
For me I'd almost say it's like Halo missing a Warthog section
Everyone hated on this thing but for me its absence from 2 is actually kinda painfully noticeable.
I feel like it added a lot to the 1st game and its absence really makes 2 feel more like a corridor shooter despite much of the game being significantly better
For me I'd almost say it's like Halo missing a Warthog section
Any franchise older than 20 years has its group of elitist grumpy old fans. It's practically the definition of an old franchise.
Games are kind of a unique beast in that a lot of people (including myself) have been around since what was essentially the beginning of the entire industry and have seen it change from something that was a niche hobby into what it is now, so in some ways I understand the bitterness of feeling left behind by a thing that your early support helped create.
It's part of everything, I suppose, and there are certainly people that hang on to those bitter feelings and let them fester into unreasonable anger, but I'd posit the base feeling is just a natural consequence of change.
Melee has a much more advanced physics engine imo. It's the last time they kept momentum conservation in, although it's not surprising given that the following two games were designed for a Wii mote.
My main issue with Ultimate's engine is the buffer system. It feels so janky to play whereas Melee feels incredibly responsive. I only recently found out that Melee has zero buffer.
For a future Smash title I'd like to see a return to zero buffer and momentum conservation. The less it feels like a Kirby title, the better.
No dev team is gonna make a fighting game without an input buffer. Especially not Nintendo. At most you are gonna see the lowering of the 9-10 frame buffer to like 5-7 and limiting what can be buffered . In the case of Ultimate even ignoring the higher frame buffer, the issue is with the buffer storing your inputs on hold,instead on press.
Melee feels responsive only if you can move properly. In all other cases the game feels like pure shit.
does optional content counts when reviewing/analysing a game? ever since Rebirth dropped, i been seeing so many people just say "it's just optional" when talking about sidecontent
i'm sure the context matters (on a game like botw, everything is optional almost so yeah, optional there really is main), but when games have their "main" stuff and also sidecontent, does sidecontent have less "priority" to be good than the rest?
i'm sure the context matters (on a game like botw, everything is optional almost so yeah, optional there really is main), but when games have their "main" stuff and also sidecontent, does sidecontent have less "priority" to be good than the rest?
If the main game is really good, side content matters less. If the main game is pretty bad but the side content is exceptional, it matters. if both are bad, it doesn't matter. If both are good, it doesn't matter.
Throwing "homogenized" next to "soulless" in the bucket of words that don't really mean anything, but people like repeating as criticism.
With the Kingdom Hearts movie rumors, it got me thinking about the series and I came up with something controversial.
I don't particularly like the GaaS game trend, but I think Disney and Square could make an absolute gold mine out of a Kingdom Hearts GaaS game. Don't even give it a big cinematic main campaign like Avengers or Suicide Squad did. Just take the "358/2 Days" mission-based structure, give players a mix of Kingdom Hearts specific heroes and Disney heroes to play as and level up in these co-op missions, and let them go to town with co-op raids against Boogie or Jafar or some shit.
The Disney Adults would go crazy.
I don't particularly like the GaaS game trend, but I think Disney and Square could make an absolute gold mine out of a Kingdom Hearts GaaS game. Don't even give it a big cinematic main campaign like Avengers or Suicide Squad did. Just take the "358/2 Days" mission-based structure, give players a mix of Kingdom Hearts specific heroes and Disney heroes to play as and level up in these co-op missions, and let them go to town with co-op raids against Boogie or Jafar or some shit.
The Disney Adults would go crazy.
I always felt there was something off about MK tracks these days but I never was able to put my finger on what until I read this tbh
I feel like it started to be that way with MK7, and it's probably why almost all of my favorite MK8DX tracks are retro maps (or newer ones that are relatively 'simple' like Electrodrome and Neo Bowser City).
The Nintendo 64 Controller is better than the Gamecube Controller.
I love shoulder analog buttons, but the ones here are bad. The D pad is the worst we've seen on any system. The c-stick can barely do it's job regarding cameras and aiming. The A button is convenient and the others simply work.
I love shoulder analog buttons, but the ones here are bad. The D pad is the worst we've seen on any system. The c-stick can barely do it's job regarding cameras and aiming. The A button is convenient and the others simply work.
I agree, the one reason I preferred New Vegas over 3 at the time was nothing to do with the writing or the setting or whatever, it was exclusively down to NV being the one where they let you aim and shoot your gun yourself.
Still never got as far as Vegas because the shooting was still bad, but you know.
Yes I know you could do it in 3 but it sucked and felt bad and always missed
The only good thing about it is how comfortable it feels to hold.The Nintendo 64 Controller is better than the Gamecube Controller.
I love shoulder analog buttons, but the ones here are bad. The D pad is the worst we've seen on any system. The c-stick can barely do it's job regarding cameras and aiming. The A button is convenient and the others simply work.
To be fair even there I can't say it's wrong.
The framerate on Soul calibut on DC was a really nice thing to have but that wasn't why anyone was playing the game and anyone who was trying to sell it to you was gonna talk about literally anything but framerate.
If the only good thing you can tell about a game is that the framerate is solid, it kind of is an indictment on the rest of the package of the game.
TLoU Part 2 is an improvement on the first game in every conceivable way aside from maybe pacing, and even then I think Part 2 justifies and its length.
Combat, exploration, story. All improvements.
The complaint that (massive Part 2 spoilers) Joel's death was poorly handled because he would never have let himself be put in danger like that is particularly bad. Joel is clearly not the survivor he was. He's older, slower. Worn down by the consequences of his actions, his loss, and seeing a young woman in trouble was unfortunately the ideal situation for him to lower his guard a bit too long as it ties directly into his regrets regarding Sarah and Ellie.
Also living in relative comfort and safety for so long would have dulled his edges.
Tommy too, both simply aren't as effective survivors as they once were. .
If t makes perfect sense that this would happen.
The impact of the mid game (not sure this needs a spoiler as it's well known now, but just in case) protagonist switch was in me of the most effective I've ever experienced. On my first playthrough I put the gamepad down and stood up and said out loud "no way I'm controlling her, what the fuck!". The way they managed to evoke such strong emotions and eventually have me sympathise and even grow attached to Abby equally to Ellie was so well done. .
GotG for me. Replaying now and it's constantly reminding me how incredible and experience it is.
Combat, exploration, story. All improvements.
The complaint that (massive Part 2 spoilers) Joel's death was poorly handled because he would never have let himself be put in danger like that is particularly bad. Joel is clearly not the survivor he was. He's older, slower. Worn down by the consequences of his actions, his loss, and seeing a young woman in trouble was unfortunately the ideal situation for him to lower his guard a bit too long as it ties directly into his regrets regarding Sarah and Ellie.
Also living in relative comfort and safety for so long would have dulled his edges.
Tommy too, both simply aren't as effective survivors as they once were. .
If t makes perfect sense that this would happen.
The impact of the mid game (not sure this needs a spoiler as it's well known now, but just in case) protagonist switch was in me of the most effective I've ever experienced. On my first playthrough I put the gamepad down and stood up and said out loud "no way I'm controlling her, what the fuck!". The way they managed to evoke such strong emotions and eventually have me sympathise and even grow attached to Abby equally to Ellie was so well done. .
GotG for me. Replaying now and it's constantly reminding me how incredible and experience it is.
I find not being satisfied with framerate to be valid, but sometimes the complaints feels like people who just got into gaming a few years ago, variable framerates has been a thing in gaming since their existence but it feels like some people find them just unacceptable if their not atleast a locked 60.
A Few years back when people were high off the early PS5 games that were just PS4 cross Gen titles they really were on crusader kick with it and also thought it was gonna be the new normal. It felt like it was their 1st console Gen and it was just really naive
Xenoblade 3 has personally ruined the concept of side content, because it's side content is genuinely amazing. It's been building up on this from X and 2 but is now peaked. And xenoblade 3 is technically a AA game, so that has colored my impressions of side content from now on. You can have good side stuff and you can judge is a games quality as a whole from it
I don't think this is fair.
For a start, frame pacing issues (an element of frame rates and performance) can give people headaches and motion sickness etc...
Also, wildly uneven frame rates can be incredibly distracting and mess with gameplay directly. There is input lag at lower fps, and if the flucuates wildly you can experience shifts in input lag that mess with your timing. For some games this will matter less, like turn based RPGs for example, but for others like fighting games or FPS it can make a big difference.
When it comes to solid 30fps vs 60fps or something, I can understand as there's weird hyperbole on both sides there. Put that aside though, and I really can't undersrand you calling this entire topic valid when higher FPS makes games feel so much better for a lot of people.
Like, I personally can't play an FPS at 30fps anymore and have a good time. That might seem ridiculous to you, but just consider that lot of us have become so used to playing at higher FPS that the drop to 30 in certain games and the input lag and lack of responsiveness that comes with it will put us off playing.
I tried Suicide Squad recently. The game couldn't lock 60fps and had dips into the 30s. The only choice I had was lock it to 30 which is something that feels too bad for me for a game that requires quick reactions, or put up with wild swings in FPS and all the issues they cause.
Again, I get being put off by some of the hyperbole surrounding this topic, but I really can't undersrand calling the topic vapid as a given. It's not. FPS is a major factor of game feel that can't be ignored, even if you personally aren't affected by the issues that can arise.
They do mean things, they are just easily recognizable shorthand for something that is very difficult to explain
Yep.
The caveat here being don't just say something is souless and leave it at that, as it doesn't really explain what you mean about the specific game as the term is too vague on its own.
Instead, use it as part of your point. Something like:
"The game felt weirdly souless to me, lacking any real emotional heft to the story, characters felt like empty avatars delivering exposition, level design felt uninspired and flat. The entire experience felt kind of clinical, and underdesigned, and didn't leave any kind of positive impression, or ellicit any emotion or response in me. Nothing about it felt satisfying, and when I was done I couldn't tell you anything positive I gained from the experience.".
I've even seen people articulate something like this and clearly justify their use of "souless", and give specific details and we'll reasoned arguments, only to have someone ignore the entirety of their post aside from that one word and say something like "ah souless, the term that means nothing" in response.
If course, I've also seen lots of people just say "game is soulless trash" and other drivers ve by style comments that add nothing, which happens often so I understand why someone would be annoyed with the word.
Agreed. It's one of my least favorite controllers, never understood why its beloved by some peopleThe Nintendo 64 Controller is better than the Gamecube Controller.
I love shoulder analog buttons, but the ones here are bad. The D pad is the worst we've seen on any system. The c-stick can barely do it's job regarding cameras and aiming. The A button is convenient and the others simply work.
Well put. I agree that it's one of the best games ever made and utilizes the storytelling advantages of video games in such a unique way.
Games, especially in the current AAA space, are homogenized though. Like Apex Legends made a really good ping system and then Fortnite and basically every multiplayer game with coop elements immediately copied it. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing, I think in that instance it's great, but it is homogenization. Games more then pretty much any medium copy and build off each other.
I don't have a problem with Joel's death, but that perception of Joel is on ND. Joel and basically every character in the series are in universe unstoppable killing machines. This is a series with multiple children that with barely or no real training are Hawkeye level archers running around taking out adults with guns. Ellie in Part 2 gets impaled on a tree and then spends hours literally bleeding like a stuck pig and just walks it off and keeps taking out squads of people.Tommy not only survives getting shot in the head, but also the leg and spends hours bleeding out of the hole in his dead with no medical attention)
Even ignoring gameplay stuff, Joel is the worst about this and is consistently depicted as superhuman. Joel not only survives falling 10 feet and getting impaled, but gets up and keeps gunning down people. Some how he just gets better from having his intestines torn apart with apparently no surgery. Despite being nearly dead and incapable of taking care himself, a shot of penicillin Popeyes him and he's perfectly fine outside of occasionally going "owie" and acting like a child with a tummy ache. He's so fine in fact that he seemingly takes out all of David's people. Then there's the whole end of the first game. This is how Part 2 chose to depict what Joel did
Joel canonically John Wicked his way through squads of heavily armed people and left the hospital like he's a slasher villain.
Even the show which they talked up making Joel more vulnerable with his issue with his knee and hearing, still had him do tons of over the top shit. The series plays it really fast and loose with when it wants to be realistic and grounded.
I don't think any of this is an issue personally. All games like this require suspension of disbelief. Unless a game like this we're to constantly shift between a tonne of protagonists as each one dies in a believable way, it's going to feel inconsistent at some point due to the simple nature of it being a video game.Games, especially in the current AAA space, are homogenized though. Like Apex Legends made a really good ping system and then Fortnite and basically every multiplayer game with coop elements immediately copied it. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing, I think in that instance it's great, but it is homogenization. Games more then pretty much any medium copy and build off each other.
I don't have a problem with Joel's death, but that perception of Joel is on ND. Joel and basically every character in the series are in universe unstoppable killing machines. This is a series with multiple children that with barely or no real training are Hawkeye level archers running around taking out adults with guns. Ellie in Part 2 gets impaled on a tree and then spends hours literally bleeding like a stuck pig and just walks it off and keeps taking out squads of people.Tommy not only survives getting shot in the head, but also the leg and spends hours bleeding out of the hole in his dead with no medical attention)
Even ignoring gameplay stuff, Joel is the worst about this and is consistently depicted as superhuman. Joel not only survives falling 10 feet and getting impaled, but gets up and keeps gunning down people. Some how he just gets better from having his intestines torn apart with apparently no surgery. Despite being nearly dead and incapable of taking care himself, a shot of penicillin Popeyes him and he's perfectly fine outside of occasionally going "owie" and acting like a child with a tummy ache. He's so fine in fact that he seemingly takes out all of David's people. Then there's the whole end of the first game. This is how Part 2 chose to depict what Joel did
Joel canonically John Wicked his way through squads of heavily armed people and left the hospital like he's a slasher villain.
Even the show which they talked up making Joel more vulnerable with his issue with his knee and hearing, still had him do tons of over the top shit. The series plays it really fast and loose with when it wants to be realistic and grounded.
This also doesn't really have much to do with the specific points I brought up above.
Now, a game that actually does shift between say a dozen protagonists as each one dies in a variety of ways from heroic deaths to freak accidents could be really cool.
This is what I mean by just repeating criticism. AAA games are homogenized, but how many Metroidvanias comes out every week. How many farming games. But if we point that out then we're just picking on people that like those genres apparently for simply stating a fact.
The word derivative exists and means something, but everyone likes saying safe, soulless, homogenenized and shitting on AAA games (while putting over other games guilty of the exact same shit, just made by devs they like) so we just repeat what they said even though thinking about it for at least 5 minutes would make you go "well, everyone says that, but is it REALLY true?"
If we're gonna be doing this overly cynical, everything has to be a contest, validate my taste thing, I just wish we could do it more honestly because the picking and choosing gets to me.
Last edited: